#FactCheck-Viral Video of Indian Flag Desecration is from Karachi, Pakistan, Not Tehran
Executive Summary
A video showing a large crowd disrespecting the Indian tricolor along with American and Israeli flags is being widely shared on social media. Users sharing the video claim that the incident recently took place in Iran's capital, Tehran, showcasing "Iran's hatred towards India." However, a fact-check done by the CyberPeace Research Wing has revealed that this claim is misleading. The viral video was not filmed in Iran, but rather during a procession in Karachi, Pakistan.
The Claim
A user on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) shared the video with the caption: "India’s biggest enemy is burning our flag and guess who is sitting silently? Iran is not our friend. Their hatred towards India is clearly visible, but our tricolor is being burnt in Iran." https://x.com/bhagwakrantivir/status/2071096021183246667 , https://archive.ph/6mGE8
Factcheck
Keyframes extracted from the viral video were searched using Google Lens. This led to an Instagram post containing the exact same footage. The caption of this post identified the location as Karachi, Pakistan, noting that the demonstration was held in support of Iran, during which flags of India, the US, and Israel were burnt.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaDLQO6obcK/
Further keyword searches led to the official Instagram account of the 'Imamia Students Organization Karachi'. A video uploaded on June 25, 2026, showed the same event captured from a different camera angle. According to the caption, the footage is from a '9th Muharram' procession in Karachi.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DaApSBfIpNQ/
To conclusively establish the location, Google Maps Street View was used to cross-reference the physical landmarks seen in the video.The visual elements perfectly match Mohammad Ali Jinnah Road in Karachi, Pakistan.A distinct blue building named 'Mid Town', visible in the viral video, matches the Google Street View imagery of the location.
Conclusion
The research confirms that the video showing the burning and desecration of the Indian national flag is from Karachi, Pakistan, and not Tehran, Iran. The social media claims linking this incident to Iran are false and contextually misleading.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Meta is the leader in social media platforms and has been successful in having a widespread network of users and services across global cyberspace. The corporate house has been responsible for revolutionizing messaging and connectivity since 2004. The platform has brought people closer together in terms of connectivity, however, being one of the most popular platforms is an issue as well. Popular platforms are mostly used by cyber criminals to gain unauthorised data or create chatrooms to maintain anonymity and prevent tracking. These bad actors often operate under fake names or accounts so that they are not caught. The platforms like Facebook and Instagram have been often in the headlines as portals where cybercriminals were operating and committing crimes.
To keep the data of the netizen safe and secure Paytm under first of its kind service is offering customers protection against cyber fraud through an insurance policy available for fraudulent mobile transactions up to Rs 10,000 for a premium of Rs 30. The cover ‘Paytm Payment Protect’ is provided through a group insurance policy issued by HDFC Ergo. The company said that the plan is being offered to increase the trust in digital payments, which will push up adoption.
Meta’s Cybersecurity
Meta has one of the best cyber security in the world but that diest mean that it cannot be breached. The social media giant is the most vulnerable platform in cases of data breaches as various third parties are also involved. As seen the in the case of Cambridge Analytica, a huge chunk of user data was available to influence the users in terms of elections. Meta needs to be ahead of the curve to have a safe and secure platform, for this Meta has deployed various AI and ML driven crawlers and software which work o keeping the platform safe for its users and simultaneously figure out which accounts may be used by bad actors and further removes the criminal accounts. The same is also supported by the keen participation of the user in terms of the reporting mechanism. Meta-Cyber provides visibility of all OT activities, observes continuously the PLC and SCADA for changes and configuration, and checks the authorization and its levels. Meta is also running various penetration and bug bounty programs to reduce vulnerabilities in their systems and applications, these testers are paid heavily depending upon the scope of the vulnerability they found.
CyberRoot Risk Investigation
Social media giant Meta has taken down over 40 accounts operated by an Indian firm CyberRoot Risk Analysis, allegedly involved in hack-for-hire services along with this Meta has taken down 900 fraudulently run accounts, these accounts are said to be operated from China by an unknown entity. CyberRoot Risk Analysis was responsible for sharing malware over the platform and used it to impersonate themselves just as their targets, i.e lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs, and industries like – cosmetic surgery, real estate, investment firms, pharmaceutical, private equity firms, and environmental and anti-corruption activists. They would get in touch with such personalities and then share malware hidden in files which would often lead to data breaches subsequently leading to different types of cybercrimes.
Meta and its team is working tirelessly to eradicate the influence of such bad actors from their platforms, use of AI and Ml based tools have increased exponentially.
Paytm CyberFraud Cover
Paytm is offering customers protection against cyber fraud through an insurance policy available for fraudulent mobile transactions up to Rs 10,000 for a premium of Rs 30. The cover ‘Paytm Payment Protect’ is provided through a group insurance policy issued by HDFC Ergo. The company said that the plan is being offered to increase the trust in digital payments, which will push up adoption. The insurance cover protects transactions made through UPI across all apps and wallets. The insurance coverage has been obtained by One97 Communications, which operates under the Paytm brand.
The exponential increase in the use of digital payments during the pandemic has made more people susceptible to cyber fraud. While UPI has all the digital safeguards in place, most UPI-related frauds are undertaken by confidence tricksters who get their victims to authorise a transaction by passing collect requests as payments. There are also many fraudsters collecting payments by pretending to be merchants. These types of frauds have resulted in a loss of more than Rs 63 crores in the previous financial year. The issue of data insurance is new to India but is indeed the need of the hour, majority of netizens are unaware of the value of their data and hence remain ignorant towards data protection, such steps will result in safer data management and protection mechanisms, thus safeguarding the Indian cyberspace.
Conclusion
cyberspace is at a critical juncture in terms of data protection and privacy, with new legislation coming out on the same we can expect new and stronger policies to prevent cybercrimes and cyber-attacks. The efforts by tech giants like Meta need to gain more speed in terms of the efficiency of cyber safety of the platform and the user to make sure that the future of the platforms remains secured strongly. The concept of data insurance needs to be shared with netizens to increase awareness about the subject. The initiative by Paytm will be a monumental initiative as this will encourage more platforms and banks to commit towards coverage for cyber crimes. With the increasing cases of cybercrimes, such financial coverage has come as a light of hope and security for the netizens.
Introduction
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) released the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 on March 30, 2026, inviting public comments with a response window closing on April 14. This is a limited 15-day period for public input on proposed rules that will have major constitutional impacts. The brevity and timing of this opportunity demonstrate debatable commitment to stakeholder engagement and meaningful consultation by the drafting agency.
While MEITY describes the proposed amendments as "clarificatory and procedural nature," an analysis shows they will have substantive effects. Collectively, the amended language changes significantly how online speech will be regulated in India by providing the executive with more concentrated regulatory authority, limiting the required transparency of content enforcement, mandating greater retention of data without proportionality-based safeguards, and placing excessive compliance burden on intermediaries. Each of these changes has consequences beyond just changes in process and together, these changes collectively raise substantial concerns regarding compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Constitutional Baseline: Shreya Singhal and the Limits of Intermediary Liability
India’s Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 provides the foundation for intermediary liability, wherein the Court read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, holding that intermediaries are required to act upon receiving actual knowledge only through a court order or a valid notification by the appropriate government authority. The Supreme Court’s decision intended to provide a constitutional protection to intermediaries from being subjected to informal, unverified executive pressure to take down content by requiring that any such order be subject to some level of legal objective credibility or threshold.
Rule 3(4) of the proposed amendments places that balance under significant strain. By requiring intermediaries to comply with advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines issued by the Ministry — and tying non-compliance to the loss of safe harbour — the draft effectively lowers the constitutional threshold that Shreya Singhal was designed to maintain. Compliance obligations now potentially arise from instruments that carry no judicial sanction and no mandatory public disclosure.
Rule 3(4): Delegated Legislation or Executive Overreach
The rule-making power conferred on the Central Government under Section 87 of the IT Act is limited to carrying out the provisions of the Act. It does not authorise the creation of new substantive obligations. This principle has been consistently affirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, where the Court held that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute.
Rule 3(4) tests those limits. It converts executive advisories into binding compliance instruments without a clear statutory foundation in either Section 79 or Section 87. Although the proposed rule requires that such instruments specify their legal basis, there is no requirement that they be published or made publicly accessible. This creates a framework in which legality risks becoming circular — instruments claimed to be lawful solely by reference to a provision that does not clearly authorise them, shielded from scrutiny by their own opacity. Justice Chandurkar’s judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India identified precisely this defect in the Fact Check Unit amendment. Rule 3(4) replicates the structural problem in a broader form.
Compliance Pressure and the Logic of Over-Censorship
The practical consequence of Rule 3(4) lies not only in its legality but in how it reshapes incentive structures for platforms. An intermediary facing the permanent threat of safe harbour loss will not wait to assess the legal merit of each advisory. The rational calculation is to comply early, broadly, and without friction. Lawful content — particularly satire, political commentary, and journalism — becomes vulnerable not because it is unlawful, but because it presents regulatory risk.
This dynamic was visible on 18 March 2026, when stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani (@hunnywhoisfunny) found his satirical Instagram reel being restricted across India. The video had accumulated over 16.5 million views. Users encountered a notice citing Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. No reasons were publicly provided. No prior hearing was offered. The same night, several political parody and satire accounts were withheld on X.
Data Retention, Privacy, and the Proportionality Test
The amendments to Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) extend data retention obligations by making them additional to requirements under any other law. The existing 180-day floor for retained user data — covering removed content, registration information, and associated records — becomes a minimum rather than a ceiling. No maximum is specified, and no proportionality requirement accompanies the extension.
This raises direct concerns under Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which held that any state intrusion into privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Undefined retention periods, with no statutory ceiling and no requirement of purpose limitation, risk failing all three. The longer user data is held, including metadata, device information, and records of removed content, the greater the exposure to surveillance, unauthorised access, and use beyond the original justification.
Circumventing Judicial Scrutiny Through Procedural Redesign
The Bombay High Court, in its August 2021 order, stayed provisions of the IT Rules’ oversight mechanism as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a). The Madras High Court in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India affirmed that stay, cautioning that government-controlled media oversight risked undermining press independence. Both matters remain pending before the Delhi High Court.
The amendments to Rules 8(1) and 14 restructure the same oversight machinery through a modified procedural design. By extending the Inter-Departmental Committee’s jurisdiction to cover “matters” referred by the Ministry with no requirement of a complainant, no defined subject matter, and no guaranteed prior hearing, the proposed rules effectively reconstitute what courts found constitutionally suspect. Individual users posting news and current affairs content are now brought within reach of blocking mechanisms originally designed for institutional publishers.
Conclusion
As seen above, the Draft IT Rules 2026 are unable to meet the constitutional and judicial requirements to regulate free speech. What the proposed amendments construct is a durable system in which platforms self-censor under liability pressure, data is retained without proportionate justification, and content oversight expands through procedural adjustment rather than parliamentary legislation. Regulation of the digital public sphere is both legitimate and necessary. But it must be anchored in law, not in the quiet authority of executive advisories. The law must ultimately remain anchored in constitutional values, guided by the enduring principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
The comment period closes on 14 April 2026.
Submissions may be sent to itrules.consultation@meity.gov.in.
References
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/30591fc6e322dcbcc9dae84a0f02e9e7.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/a71a21d35c107f2e528363d3eb17646a.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/02/550681ab908f8afb135b0ad42816a1c9.pdf
- https://neopolitico.com/india/government-blocks-viral-satirical-reel-impersonating-pm-modi-raising-fresh-questions-on-free-speech-and-digital-regulation/
- https://internetfreedom.in/sound-the-alarm-iffs-first-read-on-meitys-draft-it-rules-second-amendment-2026/
Executive Summary
A video of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Thalapathy Vijay is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that he reached Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and participated in an ongoing protest. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the viral claim to be misleading. During the research, we found an official clarification issued by the Delhi Police, which clearly refuted the claim and stated that the video was being shared with a false context.
Claim
A user on social media platform Instagram shared the viral video claiming that Thalapathy Vijay had reached Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and joined a protest there.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/Da-tsmSpC-V/
https://archive.ph/submit/?url
https://www.instagram.com/reels/Da-tsmSpC-V/
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted multiple keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found a similar image posted on Instagram on May 5, 2026, which contained visuals matching the viral video. The post did not mention any connection with a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DX8cmt6oqP9/
Further research revealed that the first major on-ground protest of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) was organised at Jantar Mantar on June 6, 2026. This confirms that the viral video, which is being linked to the CJP protest, is being shared with an incorrect context.
During further verification, we found a report published by BBC Tamil on May 4, 2026, which carried visuals similar to the viral video. https://www.bbc.com/tamil/articles/c202nd32v5ro
According to the BBC report, TVK (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam) leader Vijay won from the Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East assembly constituencies during the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The visuals in the viral video are related to Vijay’s political activities in Tamil Nadu and are not from Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Additionally, the Delhi Police issued an official clarification stating that the claim linking the video to Jantar Mantar was false.
https://x.com/DCPNewDelhi/status/2078932755023577234?s=20
Conclusion
CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that the viral video of Thalapathy Vijay is not from a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. The video is being circulated with a false and misleading claim. The Delhi Police has also officially denied the claim. Users are advised not to share such misleading content without verification.
